Would you be for or against the below suggested rule to better protect knees

[Coach]

As we all know, it's open season on knees. The difficult part it to determine a player's intent. Was it an accident, or was the knee the target? I pondered this on Bell's injury.

What if there was a rule that said a player who clearly hits a knee ( Not caught in a pile-up or pushed into the ball carrier ) is to be fined a portion of his game check if the player misses games because of a documented injury?

Such a rule would likely cut down on shots at or below the knee. Most players would become more aware of where they are tackling. Such a rule would also deter players who wish to injure others.

 

[nitsuj1225]

As we all know, it's open season on knees. The difficult part it to determine a player's intent. Was it an accident, or was the knee the target? I pondered this on Bell's injury.

What if there was a rule that said a player who clearly hits a knee ( Not caught in a pile-up or pushed into the ball carrier ) is to be fined a portion of his game check if the player misses games because of a documented injury?

Such a rule would likely cut down on shots at or below the knee. Most players would become more aware of where they are tackling. Such a rule would also deter players who wish to injure others.

Has the current fine structure deterred shots to the head? If so, might be something to look into. If not, nope, move along.

It's also a contact sport so injuries are inevitable regardless of all the fines/penalties imposed.

 

[mdk2]

I hate knee injuries but it's part of the game. It's already hard enough to tackle with all the rules they currently have in place for tackling.

P.S...did they do away with the rule about not allowing RBs to lower their helmets into defenders after the line of scrimmage.. I'm not sure if that was the exact rule but it was something similar.

 

[Coach]

Has the current fine structure deterred shots to the head? If so, might be something to look into. If not, nope, move along.

It's also a contact sport so injuries are inevitable regardless of all the fines/penalties imposed.

I think it has, but I do not have the data. Many head shots are because of a fall where they smack their helmet into the turf / grass, or catch a knee / shoulder pad to the head while falling down. The classic helmet to helmet hits always seems to be called.

This type of rule would hit an area the players are concerned about. Their wallet. A flag would be a judgement call, and many players do not care about a flag so I don't; want to see a flag.

 

[AggieSteel]

In theory of course I am for anything that better protects players, but it's also a slippery slope. They've taken head shots out of the game, but it's much easier to avoid going for the head than it is to avoid going for the knees. Tackling the legs is fairly common and often necessary, but if a guy just happens to injure his knee getting tackled in the legs with no ill intent whatsoever by the tackler, how would the rule be interpreted? Will players be scared to touch a ball carrier at all?

 

[steelerscotty]

More hits happen low now BECAUSE they banned high hits. If we ban low hits then whats next? First time someone dies of a ruptured spleen or something they will ban hitting altogether and then it will be flag football. Reset the rules to 1999 (or somewhere around there), everyone signs a waiver, and just play FOOTBALL ALREADY!

 

[Steeleers]

Man, I don't know. May cause us more problems than it solves...

 

[Atlsteelers]

Where are you supposed to hit now and wherever that is how can you make that judgement within seconds?

 

[Troglodyte]

I'm not for outlawing tackling around the knees, but if the horse collar tackle is illegal, the type of tackle that injured Bell should be as well.

 

[madinsomniac]

Meh lets just play Madden Football instead of live football... much safer...

 

[Steeleers]

Like Aggie said upthread, this is a slippery slope. Where is the intent to injure on this tackle: